Elm, PA – It has been several years in the making but a dam on Saucon Creek in Northampton County is set to be removed. Work on the Saucon Park Dam located in Hellertown, may begin as early as this week. The dam which is located on Saucon Creek is a tributary of the Lehigh River.

The funding for this project came from two grants that were received. The 1st from American Rivers through their NOAA Community-Based Restoration Program Partnership Grant in the amount of $25,000. The 2nd is from DEP’s Growing Greener Funding in the amount of $64,000.

The dam is owned by the City of Bethlehem and is being removed to avoid liability and maintenance issues due to flooding. Project partners include the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, URS Corporation, Urban Research and Development Corporation, Northampton County Sportsmen’s Clubs, Northampton County Conservation District, and Wildlands Conservancy.

In addition to the dam removal, there will be 800 plus feet of stream bank stabilization work completed using devices such as a J-hook rock vane and rootwads."

JeffS wrote:Anyone fish this stretch since the dam has been removed? Have fish been holding there?

I'm not familiar with this particular dam, so I can't say whether its removal will be beneficial for trout or not.

But there is a very common assumption that ALL dam removals will benefit trout populations. That assumption is definitely wrong. Each dam is different. In some cases dam removal is very benecial to trout populations. In other cases it is highly detrimental. It depends on a lot of individual factors about the dam and the stream and the specific location, etc.

In my humble opinion, dam removal is beneficial to all fish populations.

Obviously, we are on a forum that leans towards trout, but, again in my humble opinion, if trout were meant to be in a given waterway...they are going to be in that waterway - regardless of a dam being present or not.

You know dams ruin fish populations...where are you coming from with this post?

In my humble opinion, dam removal is beneficial to all fish populations.

Obviously, we are on a forum that leans towards trout, but, again in my humble opinion, if trout were meant to be in a given waterway...they are going to be in that waterway - regardless of a dam being present or not.

You know dams ruin fish populations...where are you coming from with this post?

The dam in question is within the TT Special Reg Section. In additional to the dam removal, bank stabilization and in-stream habitat work is being done above the dam. Trout have been holding in the run where the dam was removed and they have taken to the habitat structures upstream. This should be no surprise since this section of Saucon Creek is loaded with fish.

troutbert - on what good trout stream in PA have trout populations been significantly reduced or eliminated as a result of a dam being removed?

The dam in question is within the TT Special Reg Section. In additional to the dam removal, bank stabilization and in-stream habitat work is being done above the dam. Trout have been holding in the run where the dam was removed and they have taken to the habitat structures upstream. This should be no surprise since this section of Saucon Creek is loaded with fish.

troutbert - on what good trout stream in PA have trout populations been significantly reduced or eliminated as a result of a dam being removed?

The removal of the West Penn Power Dam on Spring Creek greatly reduced the trout habitat and populations.

The removal of the McCoy Dam on Spring Creek also greatly reduced the trout habitat and caused a very significant reduction in trout populations. The recent work in August will help alleviate the situation somewhat, but the trout habitat is still not nearly as good as when the dam was there.

Trindle Springs? Maybe someone else who lives closer can comment on the removal of that little milldam with the nice plunge pool that swarmed with trout. How has that gone?

Many people assume that if you remove a dam that habitat conditions will return to a normal, natural condition afterwards. In many cases that does NOT happen, for complicated reasons.

I try not to get involved in these discussions. However, I felt the need to clarify misinformation regarding the removal of McCoy Dam and Cabin Hill Dam on Spring Creek. In both cases, PFBC staff noted a significant increase in trout biomass after removal of the dams. At McCoy, the PFBC documented a three-fold increase in trout biomass. This was prior to the completion of recent habitat work. We fully expect this trend to continueas fish respond to the habitat enhancement. A detailed report of fish response is on the PFBC website under http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/fi ... fm/2009/3x03_09spring.htm. I've been involved in over 150 dam removals accross the state. I never observed long-term negative impacts to trout populations only positive responses.

According to the NC area fisheries manager, they did not survey the plunge pools below McCoy Dam, and they did not survey the pools in the meander bends near the gas station. They only surveyed the "flat" behind the dam.

In the case of West Penn Power dam, they did not survey the pool behind the dam. They started in the riffle above that pool and went upstream.

Do you think the data provides a meaningful analysis of the effects of the dam removal if the deep pool habitats (which were eliminated by the dam removal) are omitted from the surveys?

troutbert wrote:According to the NC area fisheries manager, they did not survey the plunge pools below McCoy Dam, and they did not survey the pools in the meander bends near the gas station. They only surveyed the "flat" behind the dam.

In the case of West Penn Power dam, they did not survey the pool behind the dam. They started in the riffle above that pool and went upstream.

Do you think the data provides a meaningful analysis of the effects of the dam removal if the deep pool habitats (which were eliminated by the dam removal) are omitted from the surveys?

And why do you suppose they were omitted?

The plot thickens......

Posted on: 2009/10/7 12:49

_________________Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?

Note that in the survey data shown for the McCoy Dam site, it states that only 500 feet of stream were surveyed. That's not very much.

Standard PFBC surveys are around 300 meters.

And the length of stream that had significant alteration from the dam removal might be somewhat a matter of opinion, but it is roughly one mile long (5280 feet.)

Doing a before and after survey of 500 feet, when the affected area was about a mile long, and not including the largest pool areas, means that they did not do a serious study of the population effects of the McCoy Dam at all.

It's too bad that neither the PFBC nor Penn State University did a serious before-and-after trout population study at the McCoy dam site or the West Penn Power dam site.

You know nearly every habitat work to put structure into stream is blown out by floods. some very soon after they are installed, others may last for years. But even the ones that last for years aren't permanent and will either be left to deteriorate, or repaired. Without substance forested buffers along streams and a wide undeveloped flood plain nothing is safe from floods.

Posted on: 2009/10/8 23:03

_________________
George Orwell warned, "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."